Many Klatch: Any photos of that "schimmel" of yours?
Schimmels- just how plain?
- Thread starter Onojutta
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Onojutta
45 Cal.
Great discussion fellas. I appreciate everyone’s input. I should distinguish that I asked the original question not because I wanted to create a “barn gun”, but because I want to recreate a rifle that is specific to my local area. I don’t have much experience building guns much less with relief carving, so I must humbly admit that I am attempting to justify not carving it! :grin:
Is it really any wonder that few rifles exist from the years just prior to and through the Revolution, and that so many muskets do exist?? Gunsmiths were in huge demand before and during the Rev. making arms for war. With so few custom private arms being made compared to the thousands of muskets and military guns being cranked out, it makes perfect sense that there are far more military specimens available for study from that time frame. I believe that is why there are so many decorated specimens from Golden Age after the war”¦
Stophel, you are correct in that there are many variations and inconsistencies in Mennonite and Amish practice, especially today. 200 years ago, one could probably not distinguish between the Anabaptists and the rest of society. The reason the Anabaptists are so unique now is because they have willingly refused to modernize with the world. They continue to live in the way the world lived two and a half centuries ago. What their actual faith and practices were back then are anyone’s guess. Just like today it is common to see Amish using gas lawn mowers and cell phones, I’m sure back then there were plenty of exceptions and inconsistencies as well. Now the Quakers for instance hated war and violence. I am speculating here, but I would imagine that a firearm to them was a necessary evil, a tool for survival- not something to be adorned and celebrated.
I like that someone asked why we don’t build guns the way we want them. I believe that even in the old days, many people bought guns that way. If these rifles were made to order, then likely individual buyer’s taste had as much influence on the gun as any prevailing school. It’s not like these things were mass produced in different models that can be exactly duplicated. Every single one was different, so what’s wrong with our reproductions being custom and unique just like their original counterparts?
I recognize that Kauffman’s work is rather antiquated. What are some other good references besides Colonial Rifles of America?
Is it really any wonder that few rifles exist from the years just prior to and through the Revolution, and that so many muskets do exist?? Gunsmiths were in huge demand before and during the Rev. making arms for war. With so few custom private arms being made compared to the thousands of muskets and military guns being cranked out, it makes perfect sense that there are far more military specimens available for study from that time frame. I believe that is why there are so many decorated specimens from Golden Age after the war”¦
Stophel, you are correct in that there are many variations and inconsistencies in Mennonite and Amish practice, especially today. 200 years ago, one could probably not distinguish between the Anabaptists and the rest of society. The reason the Anabaptists are so unique now is because they have willingly refused to modernize with the world. They continue to live in the way the world lived two and a half centuries ago. What their actual faith and practices were back then are anyone’s guess. Just like today it is common to see Amish using gas lawn mowers and cell phones, I’m sure back then there were plenty of exceptions and inconsistencies as well. Now the Quakers for instance hated war and violence. I am speculating here, but I would imagine that a firearm to them was a necessary evil, a tool for survival- not something to be adorned and celebrated.
I like that someone asked why we don’t build guns the way we want them. I believe that even in the old days, many people bought guns that way. If these rifles were made to order, then likely individual buyer’s taste had as much influence on the gun as any prevailing school. It’s not like these things were mass produced in different models that can be exactly duplicated. Every single one was different, so what’s wrong with our reproductions being custom and unique just like their original counterparts?
I recognize that Kauffman’s work is rather antiquated. What are some other good references besides Colonial Rifles of America?
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
"I like that someone asked why we don’t build guns the way we want them. I believe that even in the old days, many people bought guns that way.'
Many people do, yet to remain in the realm of historicaly correct we need to stay within the boundries/traits/trends that are reflected in what they did "want" in the past, if we use the anything goes mindset then we are back to the "they would have if they could have" and we are no longer dealing with the issue from a valid historical standpoint, which is fine as long as it is presented as such.The biggest issue gun history buffs have have is when folks throw together something that is radicaly different and contrary to all the trends and existing data we have and say "this is historical correct because no one can prove it isn't" a great number of the high dollar consignment gun sold by TOTW and guns offered by other vendors fall into the fantasy/non-pc realm which is fine as long as they are not represented as being other wise, and the problem lies in not simply accepting something for what it is, based on what we know, in time some things may change, this is evident in the last few decades.Then there are new avenues to explore in the replica ML world, and replica is not used here in lieu of exact copy.
Many people do, yet to remain in the realm of historicaly correct we need to stay within the boundries/traits/trends that are reflected in what they did "want" in the past, if we use the anything goes mindset then we are back to the "they would have if they could have" and we are no longer dealing with the issue from a valid historical standpoint, which is fine as long as it is presented as such.The biggest issue gun history buffs have have is when folks throw together something that is radicaly different and contrary to all the trends and existing data we have and say "this is historical correct because no one can prove it isn't" a great number of the high dollar consignment gun sold by TOTW and guns offered by other vendors fall into the fantasy/non-pc realm which is fine as long as they are not represented as being other wise, and the problem lies in not simply accepting something for what it is, based on what we know, in time some things may change, this is evident in the last few decades.Then there are new avenues to explore in the replica ML world, and replica is not used here in lieu of exact copy.
I made up a pohshimmelbarnboy gun out of a Jackie Brown in the white Carolina .54 smoothbore sometime ago, it was roughly inspired by the last gun in Whiskers book on Gunsmiths of the Carolinas, I think the triggerguard was the only furniture I used on it, I started to make a crude horn buttplate but never finished it before selling the gun, I think a simple strap guard would have looked better
Onojutta said:
I don't know of any Lancaster-styled schimmels or barn guns. An early Lancaster gun could be made with all the parts and a sliding wooden patchbox and left plain with maybe a molding or two and most folks would accept that as historically correct. The earliest English trade rifles that we know of had Lancaster architecture and sliding wooden patchboxes, and it is surmised that they were based on existing Lancaster rifles. Slightly later the English trade rifles were more obviously based on daisy patchbox lancaster rifles.
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
And, I might add, they were fully carved too.
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,963
- Reaction score
- 870
Shumway has illustrated one plain gun (though definitely not a "barn gun" by Isaac Haines, and some other Lancaster guns of the late 18th century of similar level of adornment. Haven't seen any "barn guns" from there, though. By this time, though, you begin to see plainer guns from all areas. I think mostly it's due to population growth, the increasing need for guns, and the increasing "factory-ization" of gunsmithing, in order to keep up with demand.
Actually, I don't think there were all that many PA guns prior to the 1760's of any kind. This was frontier, folks. The further back in time you go, the fewer people that were there. The fewer people, the fewer guns that are needed. If I remember correctly, when Johann Schreidt moved into Reading in 1758, he was the first gunsmith there, and the population of the "city" was about 2500 people. Imagine what the population might have been 10 years earlier. Every year you go back, there are fewer and fewer people in the area.
I think the earliest known gunsmith in Lancaster county was somebody named Beck in 1719 or 1720 (I'll have to look that up to make sure). How many guns could he make? Remember also, that folks brought their guns with them from Europe. They didn't need new guns for a while after arriving in America.
I could make the same point about cars. How many cars were there in 1920? How many were there only 30 years later, in 1950? A whole lot more. How many were there in 1970? How many now? In the same way we can say that there simply weren't as many PA guns in 1720 as there were in 1750, and not as many as there were in 1770....Population was growing relatively rapidly, and it's hard to compare numbers of guns in 1770 with 1740 or 1750.
Actually, I don't think there were all that many PA guns prior to the 1760's of any kind. This was frontier, folks. The further back in time you go, the fewer people that were there. The fewer people, the fewer guns that are needed. If I remember correctly, when Johann Schreidt moved into Reading in 1758, he was the first gunsmith there, and the population of the "city" was about 2500 people. Imagine what the population might have been 10 years earlier. Every year you go back, there are fewer and fewer people in the area.
I think the earliest known gunsmith in Lancaster county was somebody named Beck in 1719 or 1720 (I'll have to look that up to make sure). How many guns could he make? Remember also, that folks brought their guns with them from Europe. They didn't need new guns for a while after arriving in America.
I could make the same point about cars. How many cars were there in 1920? How many were there only 30 years later, in 1950? A whole lot more. How many were there in 1970? How many now? In the same way we can say that there simply weren't as many PA guns in 1720 as there were in 1750, and not as many as there were in 1770....Population was growing relatively rapidly, and it's hard to compare numbers of guns in 1770 with 1740 or 1750.
Just thinking about very early, pre-1770 Lancaster rifles and what they must have looked like. I can't think of a single "very early" original that looks "Lancaster". I am talking pre-Dickert or pre-Albrecht when he moved to Lititz in 1771. I have always wondered though about some of Dickert's earliest rifles being classified by Shumway with the Christian's Spring rifles. I see the carving similarities but there's no stepped wrist like most of the Christian's Spring rifles.
Shumway illustated an uncarved, daisy patchbox longrifle with "Lancaster" architecture, guard form, sideplate form, etc in Muzzle Blasts in August of 1982. He proposed it could be a 1760's-1770's rifle. A very nice plain rifle indeed; the daisy box is not engraved and might be a later addition. It has a large bridled flat-plate English lock. The buttplate is very wide, 2 and 3/32". It lacks even beavertails at the termination of the lock panels. The original rifled barrel was probably 45" and is but .46 caliber and 15/16" thicjk at the breech- I guess that would be a "C" weight today. This would be a terrific rifle to inspire a plain early Lancaster build. If done with a sliding wooden patchbox, it could "look" 1760's, maybe. Of course most of us would use a bigger caliber just to save weight. But to save powder and lead, this would be a great build in .45.
Shumway illustated an uncarved, daisy patchbox longrifle with "Lancaster" architecture, guard form, sideplate form, etc in Muzzle Blasts in August of 1982. He proposed it could be a 1760's-1770's rifle. A very nice plain rifle indeed; the daisy box is not engraved and might be a later addition. It has a large bridled flat-plate English lock. The buttplate is very wide, 2 and 3/32". It lacks even beavertails at the termination of the lock panels. The original rifled barrel was probably 45" and is but .46 caliber and 15/16" thicjk at the breech- I guess that would be a "C" weight today. This would be a terrific rifle to inspire a plain early Lancaster build. If done with a sliding wooden patchbox, it could "look" 1760's, maybe. Of course most of us would use a bigger caliber just to save weight. But to save powder and lead, this would be a great build in .45.
Onojutta
45 Cal.
Stophel said:
Lancaster was called Hickory Town back then and was laid out in 1734. According to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Martin Meylin was the first gunsmith to come to PA. He was a Swiss-Mennonite and settled in the area that is now Willow Street, PA just southeast of Lancaster. That would have been circa 1720.
Martn Meylin's shop, photograph taken by yours truly: http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=5116 http://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=5354
Last edited by a moderator:
Onojutta
45 Cal.
Rich Pierce, you wouldn't happen to know where I could get a copy of that article would you?
I don't want to rain on anyones parade paticularly the state of PA,but there is a lot of controvercy about Meylin actually being a gunsmith.The building pictured in not a gunshop.It might be on the sight of a gunshop but this building is not his gun shop.What's my reasoning you ask!!!!There are NO windows!!!Gunsmiths can't work without light.. :wink: :wink:
Mitch
Mitch
Onojutta
45 Cal.
Did you ever consider that the window(s) could have been filled in at some point. Show me a building that is almost 300 years old that hasn't undergone any changes. It would be hard to show a building that is 50 years old and hasn't undergone any changes. I know there is some controversy over Meylin, but I'm just the messenger. Some other concerns are that the building is small and that a rifling machine, etc. would not fit in there. All I can tell you is that professional historians with a lot more experience, training, and resources than me and probably most of us have researched and concluded what you see in those photos.
Regarding the early Lancaster rifle in the October 1982 Muzzle Blasts: You could call the NMLRA at (812)667-5131 and ask if they have a copy of the August 1982 issue. They often have surprisingly old issues. (I got issues too :cursing: ). If not, ask them if they would mind if I sent you a copy, and shoot me an email if it's OK.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Just for the heck of it, I had not heard the term "schimmel" until reading this thread. What is the word derived from?
It has been educational to learn that "poor boy" style guns were not unique to the South.
It has been educational to learn that "poor boy" style guns were not unique to the South.
Schimmels, barn guns, poorboys. Same class of firearms, different parts of the country. If'n ya want to know about Pennsylvania Dutch Schimmels ya gotta go to Chuck Dixon in Kempton PA. Dixon's Muzzle loading is the home of the "Gunbuilders Fair". Chuck also has the largest collection of pure schimmels I have ever seen in one location. Colonial gunsmith's, contrary to much mis-information, did not build just to order "back then." with their apprentices and journeymen were building ongoing. If a rifle was not a specific order, how would the build a "for stock" rifle. Think about it a minute. You build a basic rifle, lock stock and barrel, period. It would have these basics, and probably a single thimble holding the ramrod. So when a customer comes looking for a rifle he can take what's there, as is, a BASIC, no frills gun or may say, "I would feel safer witha trigger guard. I've got a little more money, so add a butt plate to protect the heal when loading and a nose cap to keep the forward end from splittin'. OK, I'm a little "well off", so I'd like a little nice carving on it, maybe a fore end moulding. or really well off and I want a patch box with a little "scratchin'" on it. And et al. Kinda like the old days of buyng a car. Take the basic or add or order "options" depending on what you could afford or needed for personal needs. Call Chuck, he'll be glad to talk to you.
Onojutta
I am in no way atacking you as messenger just throwing out some of my thoughts.Let me first say I have very strong ties to langcaster county.My mother was born and raised there,my uncles still own one of the largest dairy farms in the area,My great-grandfather had a blacksmith shop at Chestnutlevel and am related to the Landis's(Landis Valley Farm Museum).I would like nothing better for the story of Meylin to be true.There is just no proof to back up the states claim.I have studied the building in person a few years ago,The size does not bother me as it is big enough to house a gunshop of the period but saw no sign of filled in windows.I'm not saying they could not have relaid the whole building out of the existing stone that is possible.Other than some tools that could be used in the gunsmith trades that were listed on his estate inventory(and thought to been been pawned to him by his son inlawJoshua Baker)there is really no other proof he was a gunsmith.He was a very large self sufficient landowner of the time and you would expect that he would have a full blacksmith shop and possibly some other industries onsite.Other than this unless something new has come to light recently there his only hearsay to back up the stated claims.The rifle signed by him is controvercial at best!!!The claim that he is the father of the Pennnsylvania Rifle is based more in politics than history.
Mitch
I am in no way atacking you as messenger just throwing out some of my thoughts.Let me first say I have very strong ties to langcaster county.My mother was born and raised there,my uncles still own one of the largest dairy farms in the area,My great-grandfather had a blacksmith shop at Chestnutlevel and am related to the Landis's(Landis Valley Farm Museum).I would like nothing better for the story of Meylin to be true.There is just no proof to back up the states claim.I have studied the building in person a few years ago,The size does not bother me as it is big enough to house a gunshop of the period but saw no sign of filled in windows.I'm not saying they could not have relaid the whole building out of the existing stone that is possible.Other than some tools that could be used in the gunsmith trades that were listed on his estate inventory(and thought to been been pawned to him by his son inlawJoshua Baker)there is really no other proof he was a gunsmith.He was a very large self sufficient landowner of the time and you would expect that he would have a full blacksmith shop and possibly some other industries onsite.Other than this unless something new has come to light recently there his only hearsay to back up the stated claims.The rifle signed by him is controvercial at best!!!The claim that he is the father of the Pennnsylvania Rifle is based more in politics than history.
Mitch
Mike Brooks said:
Now, I know the discussion centers around very plain built rifles of the colonial era, but if you want an insight into some very interesting information as well as pictures that provides a great wealth of knowledge, start getting, or for that matter, look at the series "Ohio Gunsmiths and Allied Tradesmen" by Donald Hutslar.
I have volume 1 and I beleive there are five volumes in total....this year I'll get volume 2.
It's interesting to see the huge vareity of rifles illustrated, some very fancy, carving, inlays, patchboxes, the whole nine yards...then some are so bleak and so plain, so basic that they are a tool for work....
Some of these guys were not just building guns as a business, but were also doing other jobs as well: carpentry, furniture, farrier work for example.
Other tradesmen supplied items like brass, steel, iron, screws, wood, chisels, saw blades, so forth and so on....
So I think that the "plain gun", the "schimmel" the "barn gun" has existed in the past during the colonial era, during the 1800's, during 1900's and right now. It lives in all different forms.
One can (and did in the past) have a gun made by the Remington factory, the Winchester factory with extra fancy wood, custom engraving, extra's available to provide that customer with a unique and truly custom crafted rifle or shotgun....look up Ithica and see that those shotguns are being made in Upper Sandusky, Ohio. They will custom make you a truly fancy shotgun (you got the bucks, you got the gun).
So, I would have to think that the plain gun has always been with us, just in different times and guises, and I would have to think that the existance of such an item would rely on both the whims of the builder and the owner.
In other words, if the builder weren't skilled enough to create a fully engraved/carved rifle and all he could produce was a ordinary plain gun...well, so be it.
Suppose the customer really didn't justify the added cost to have a builder carve and engrave a gun...so be it...perhaps the customer could only afford so much and he just lost his last milking cow (damn thing died out in the pasture) and all he had was a breeder pig and four chickens...the gunsmith wants the pig and two chickens....
So I think that many of the old guns were a mixed smattering of what could be had, and what could be made...that's just my opinion (I haven't got any facts on this, so don't crucify me for my opinion)....
I also onder how much horse trading went on as well....I'll do this if you do that sort of thing...
So as far as building a barn gun, a schimmel, a poorboy or a plain gun I think the sky's the limit, so to speak. I'm really wonder what sort of rules apply and how far one can bend the rules to fabricate what they want when in the building process......
